• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Christopher said:
No script is truly finished until the day the film is sent to theaters. Rewriting during production is a normal part of the process. Star Trek 2009 was filmed during a writers' strike, so they couldn't make script changes during filming the normal way, and thus they had to make what tweaks they could with post-production redubbing after the strike ended.
Click to expand...
Oh please... stop being petty.

While a film night occasionally be made (or at least started) without a script that is "untruly" finished... I highly doubt penny pinching David Zaslav would let Superman start without a script being reasonably completed.

And @Starscream2112 has a valid question, which you clearly didn't answer
 
Christopher said:
No script is truly finished until the day the film is sent to theaters. Rewriting during production is a normal part of the process. Star Trek 2009 was filmed during a writers' strike, so they couldn't make script changes during filming the normal way, and thus they had to make what tweaks they could with post-production redubbing after the strike ended.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but isn't most of that stuff usually just a few minor tweaks here and there. It's not like they're writing the whole script as they're filming, they need something for the studio and producers and people like that to see and approve.
 
JD said:
Yeah, but isn't most of that stuff usually just a few minor tweaks here and there. It's not like they're writing the whole script as they're filming, they need something for the studio and producers and people like that to see and approve.
Click to expand...

Naturally it varies from project to project, and nobody can predict in advance how much rewriting a script may need. But yes, countless movies and TV episodes have been extensively rewritten during production; that's quite normal. Many movies have been drastically rewritten and reshot after principal production (Justice League being an infamous example). Everything in the filmmaking process is subject to change until the film is released, and sometimes even afterward (as in directors' cuts and the like).
 
I don't see anything too specific in there that we didn't basically already know. Just Affleck saying he wanted to make nuanced characters and he wanted Deathstroke to be impressive. And it wasn't going to be a film with a group of villains. These things mostly could have been inferred.
 
FuxUAhGWIAAQFvg
 
Mage said:
https://www.joblo.com/the-flash-production-designer-people-will-forget-ezra-miller-crimes/

Sure, that's definitely not a weird thing to say....
I mean, I can understand how the stress got to them. But this sounds like defending criminal behaviour.
Click to expand...

No, as I read the original comments, I think he's just saying that the job Miller does as a performer in the movie is a separate thing from what they've done in their personal life. He's not saying we should forget their crimes permanently, just that we won't be thinking about them while we're watching the movie. The movie is just not about them, any more than, say, Kiefer Sutherland's performances onscreen are about his multiple drunk driving convictions, or Charles S. Dutton's acting roles are about the five years he spent in prison for manslaughter when he was younger. Lots of actors have criminal records, sometimes serious ones, but still get appreciated for their work. Because endorsing the good someone has done is not excusing the bad, it's just acknowledging that they're two separate things.

I mean, heck, an actor's performance in a movie is something they do for other people, as an employee following the instructions of a director and producer and writers. So it's not really about who they are, and it's not about anything they've done in their personal lives. It's just a job they were hired to do.
 
I always have mixed feelings about that kind of an attitude, at times it feels like this is making excuses, so you can still watch something involving horrible people without feeling guilty about it.
Now, I will admit to having still seen movies and TV shows involving people who done things not far off from what Miller did, but I look at it as continuing to support people I do like, and am willing to let the person I don't like get their cut if it means all of the innocent people involved can still get theirs. But I don't overlook or excuse what the bad person did.
If it's a book or something with only one creator, like a novel, I will not read or watch it, or whatever.
 
I agree with a feeling of guilt financially supporting an artist or entertainer who has done something unethical, and at the same time, I have to acknowledge how difficult that is to actually achieve. In my life, for example, I probably will never watch the Cosby Show again but I do watch The Naked Gun movies; and I do watch sports and lost track of how many players on my favorite teams have done shady things. Also, many of my favorite writers and musicians have done unethical things and I still buy their books and listen to their music. I think it is important to recognize that, just as you can love family members and know that they are not good people--it is okay to consume art and entertainment while recognizing that the people behind that may not be good people.
 
JD said:
I always have mixed feelings about that kind of an attitude, at times it feels like this is making excuses, so you can still watch something involving horrible people without feeling guilty about it.
Click to expand...

Who a person is and what they do are two different things. I can't know if the people who bag my groceries or who built my car ever did anything vile or criminal, and it would make no difference to my life anyway, because the jobs they perform are not about who they are in their personal lives. Acting creates the illusion of a more direct, intimate connection to a person, but it's still just an illusion. It's still just a job they do, nothing more.

And the same person can do both good things and bad things. It makes no sense to try to reduce an entire complicated human being to a single variable. I don't see how appreciating the good things someone did equates to excusing or endorsing the bad things, and I don't see how rejecting the good things helps with the bad things.

If I boycotted anything created by a person who'd done bad things, I'd have to throw out Star Trek because of Gene Roddenberry's sexual predations and generally jerky behavior to his collaborators. I'd have to throw out most of DC Comics because Julius Schwartz was a horrible sexual predator and misogynist. I'd have to throw out Isaac Asimov's canon for his decades of sexual harassment. I'd have to throw out the Hitchcock canon because of his atrocious behavior toward his actresses. I'd have to throw out the first Doctor Who because William Hartnell was a racist. Most of the stuff I love was created by problematical people. But I don't see how it would make things any better if I rejected the good things they'd done.

We don't blame children for the sins of their parents. So should we blame people's brainchildren, the books they write, the shows and films they make, and the roles they perform onstage, for the sins of their creators? Once a work is out there, it has its own life independent of its creators, because its meaning becomes a function of what its audience chooses to see in it.


But I don't overlook or excuse what the bad person did.
Click to expand...

And nobody said you should. Some people are just rushing to assume that's what the interviewee meant, instead of making the effort to find the original context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top